Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 19, 2011 3:30am-4:00am PST

3:30 am
there will be a need for a school. that many people in an area with restricted access, we need a hospital than the. all of us are leaders. when we work together, we are much more effective. i am asking that a simple procedure is allowed to submit ideas. thank you. >> is there additional public comment? >> good evening. i am representing the san francisco green party. you can reference most of what i will say in the sixth page comments that i sent to the environmental impact report.
3:31 am
there was some big issues with this that are completely unresolved. this is a 21st century. the greenhouse gas situation is an emergency. the eir prepared for this project. this allowed for major increases in greenhouse gases and that is not a situation and we need to have an aggressive negation of greenhouse gas releases. currently, and there are people who live on the island to cannot grow food in their soil. for what i've seen, that will
3:32 am
continue. there will be soil conditions where the residents will not be able to plant gardens in the soil. once again, this is a 21st century. we need all of the soil to be sufficiently claimed. liquefaction, the only compaction that will happen will be where the towers are built. if there is a major earthquake, the buildings my stand-up but if the entire remainder falls out from underneath them, that is not a good situation. this brings me to the biggest issue which is currently in the eir, there is an assumption that the highest possible.
3:33 am
james hansen things as possible to have 16.5 feet. in the eir documents, the planners say that they will plan for the fifth to 6 inches and if it goes higher, we will use adopted management. the economics of this project, the height which of 60 feet. kidd will be totally changed. the must account for this in the bill the plan and the phasing plan. this has to be clear be laid out. please include an environmental groups at the beginning of this process so we get more input
3:34 am
that we got at the beginning. >> thank you. is there additional public comment? >> thank you. the project is dear to my heart. i did ask the developer who currently has a training facility on site that we used and i asked what would you plan for that civility. they said, we will definitely use it because we will need it. we are excited about that. i like their plan, what they want to do for the current residents out there that they have in place. this is in the right direction. the affordability, 30%. obviously, this is a step in the
3:35 am
right direction. we like to plan. this is good for the city and county of san francisco. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> in some of the new were renderings, it looks like there might be a lake. i'm not sure of that is planned. this might be compatible with the restraints. that might be useful. if it was 2,000 meters, you could have crew races. this is a good use and it would be a consistent use. another recreational use is the athletic fields which i think
3:36 am
can probably be put into the plan as designed. it might involve moving some agricultural areas in a different direction but they put time and money into those fields. if there is a way to keep those in use. visitors must have a place to park. you need a robust ferry service to get people in and out of their. better access on and off of the bridge. this is beginning to be more and more of a hazard. the job corps should remain but i think you should be able to
3:37 am
keep the same number of trainees and provide all of the same services but not have as much square footage because i think it could be done more efficiently. i don't know what of the general position is there but we don't want to decrease the program. maybe it could be done in a more efficient way. i am very happy with the affordable standards. i assume that there will be a supportive issues as far as job training and education and the other things that go with housing.
3:38 am
there was mention of a school there. this one is active. some kind of health care facility and police and fire which should be part of the plan. pau>> the phasing is the key introductory step to this development. i applaud that effort. >> i think the plan has come a long very very well. i was pleased to hear comments
3:39 am
and i will have to talk to you later because a middle distance cousin of mine is one of the -- of the fair. i think that some of the work is still around. the building is perfect for that, obviously. i would be interested later on as we get through this to learn a little bit more about what is planned. >> do we know what the disposition of the job corps is? >> the job corps intends to remain there and we had
3:40 am
conversations with them over the years. there are attempts to remain there and continue to operate. >> maybe this is for a different meeting i know at candlestick, hunters point, there is the opportunity on the part of the master developers to parcel out different blocks or areas to other developers and the opportunity for the architects working with those developers. is that similar in this case? >> absolutely. they would have the ability to transfer phases. they would remain as the master developers. as far as specific prospects, the intent is that they would sell lots and we would be dealing with a vertical
3:41 am
developers. >> there was a slide that was shown with respect to what state lance was going to retain jurisdiction on. then, there is a whole area that they will not retain jurisdiction on. that has just been negotiated with them. >> and treasure island is part of the state lands overlay. this is much like the shipyard where we have swept -- swap parts of the training ground.
3:42 am
we have made that internal swap. >> this project will not be in the developing anymore. i would very much like to ask that this commission, this was a fourth-leading idea. i would like to see a meeting between the public utilities, the trans authority. just to talk about how they are seeing this. this is not to interfere at all with what they need to do with the redevelopment project which is very clear and all the
3:43 am
mechanisms are in place. i am interested to look ahead. if there are many things that we should be involved in the dialogue, this would be the time. this is a learning experience. we don't have many projects as large as this one. the redevelopment agency is formed around this project. this is a fair question, so i'm looking at the department where anyone else. i am personally quite interested. >> we have scheduled to be before the public you to --
3:44 am
public utilities to discuss the project. they have been with us throughout this whole process and defining the infrastructure requirements. they are the ones that operate the fees. the city comes in and they are the operator. >> this particular commission sits in dialogue with most commissions and to that we do the best and most forward- looking things. >> thank you. that's it. >> is there no further commission comments? that concludes the hearing.
3:45 am
>> we do have another meeting on the project scheduled for march 3rd. thank you. >> you are now at the general public comment. >> is there any general public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed and the meeting is adjourned.
3:46 am
3:47 am
3:48 am
3:49 am
3:50 am
3:51 am
3:52 am
3:53 am
3:54 am
3:55 am
3:56 am
3:57 am
3:58 am
3:59 am

52 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on